Turn Off Ads?
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24

Thread: 2014 Reds = 1919 Reds?

  1. #1
    Making sense of it all Matt700wlw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    26,520

    2014 Reds = 1919 Reds?


  2. Likes:

    bigredmechanism (01-24-2014), M2 (01-24-2014), redsmetz (01-24-2014), _Sir_Charles_ (01-24-2014)

  3. Turn Off Ads?
  4. #2
    Member klw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    6,609

    Re: 2014 Reds = 1919 Reds?

    Will the 2014 ChiSox be lead be Shoeless Adam Dunn?

  5. Likes:

    cincinnati chili (01-25-2014)

  6. #3
    The Lineups stink. KronoRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West N. Carolina
    Posts
    55,719

    Re: 2014 Reds = 1919 Reds?

    So we just need the other team to throw us the series?

    Nice
    Go Gators!

  7. Likes:

    Wonderful Monds (01-25-2014)

  8. #4
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,452

    Re: 2014 Reds = 1919 Reds?

    Cool article. Not a a bad comp for this team.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  9. Likes:

    Old school 1983 (01-26-2014)

  10. #5
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    43,297

    Re: 2014 Reds = 1919 Reds?

    Who will be Pat Duncan?

    In August 1919, hitting the ball hard and batting.323, Duncan was purchased by the first-place Cincinnati Reds, who were thin in the outfield because of Sherry Magee’s illness and converted pitcher Rube Bressler’s hitting woes. Duncan’s return to the big leagues was slow to start: He pinch-hit three times in his first ten days with the team, then made his first start in a game against the Philadelphia Phillies on August 26. From then on he was more or less a regular and helped the Reds capture the National League pennant for the first time. He played in left field for all eight of the World Series games against the Chicago White Sox (soon to be called the Black Sox), went 7-for-26 and led the Reds with 8 RBI. In the field he played errorless ball.

  11. #6
    post hype sleeper cincinnati chili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    10,887

    Re: 2014 Reds = 1919 Reds?

    The headline made me skeptical, but this is well conceived. The Groh/Bruce comparison is not a good one (Groh from 1916-1919 was literally twice the player offensively of Bruce, as measured by offensive WAR), but that's being nitpicky.
    ". . . acquiring J. Blanton from Oakland for, apparently, Bailey/Cueto, Votto and a lesser prospect. I do it in a second . . . The Reds' equation this year is simple: Make Matt Belisle your #3 starter . . . trade for Blanton, win 85 or more, be in the mix all summer." - Paul Daugherty, Feb. 8, 2008

  12. #7
    Moderator RedlegJake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    North Kansas City, Mo
    Posts
    6,094

    Re: 2014 Reds = 1919 Reds?

    Quote Originally Posted by cincinnati chili View Post
    The headline made me skeptical, but this is well conceived. The Groh/Bruce comparison is not a good one (Groh from 1916-1919 was literally twice the player offensively of Bruce, as measured by offensive WAR), but that's being nitpicky.
    Plus, Bruce doesn't use a bottle bat which is worth 1 WAR right there. Come to think of it....maybe a bottle bat would help Bruce on those low outside curveballs.
    No - I am not from State Farm!

  13. Likes:

    Old school 1983 (01-25-2014)

  14. #8
    post hype sleeper cincinnati chili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    10,887

    Re: 2014 Reds = 1919 Reds?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedlegJake View Post
    Plus, Bruce doesn't use a bottle bat which is worth 1 WAR right there. Come to think of it....maybe a bottle bat would help Bruce on those low outside curveballs.
    But because WAR is measured against players in the same season, it shouldn't matter. If Bruce got the advantage of a bottle bat, so would all the other guys expected to start in right field this year. I expect most NL rightfielders to outhit Bruce this year despite his favorable ballpark. I like him (in part for his defense), but it's plain silly to have him as the second best right fielder in baseball.

    NL rightfielders who I expect to outhit Bruce this year:

    Werth
    Stanton
    Puig
    Craig
    Upton or Heyward (whichever is in right)
    Cuddyer
    Dom Brown
    Ethier
    ". . . acquiring J. Blanton from Oakland for, apparently, Bailey/Cueto, Votto and a lesser prospect. I do it in a second . . . The Reds' equation this year is simple: Make Matt Belisle your #3 starter . . . trade for Blanton, win 85 or more, be in the mix all summer." - Paul Daugherty, Feb. 8, 2008

  15. #9
    Moderator RedlegJake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    North Kansas City, Mo
    Posts
    6,094

    Re: 2014 Reds = 1919 Reds?

    chili...you really need to smile and enjoy a gaffe once in a while...my post was entirely tongue in cheek
    No - I am not from State Farm!

  16. Likes:

    cincinnati chili (01-25-2014)

  17. #10
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,452

    Re: 2014 Reds = 1919 Reds?

    Quote Originally Posted by cincinnati chili View Post
    NL rightfielders who I expect to outhit Bruce this year:

    Werth
    Stanton
    Puig
    Craig
    Upton or Heyward (whichever is in right)
    Cuddyer
    Dom Brown
    Ethier
    Michael Cuddyer is not going to repeat his BABIP miracle season from 2013. Werth will be 35 (same with Cuddyer) and Bruce out-produced him in 2011 and 2012. Bruce an Ethier have been relatively equal at the plate the past three seasons, but Ethier's exiting his prime while Bruce should entering his. We'll have to see how healthy Craig stays playing the OF and whether the Cardinals can tolerate his defense in RF. Brown had a Bruce-ish season in 2013. If he has a good 2014, it will be the second good season of his career. I like Upton, but Bruce is often as good or better.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  18. Likes:

    RedlegJake (01-25-2014), Stingray (01-25-2014), westofyou (01-25-2014)

  19. #11
    Big Red Machine RedsBaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Out Wayne
    Posts
    22,928

    Re: 2014 Reds = 1919 Reds?

    I certainly do not expect the Reds to win it all in 2014. I read today that Vegas oddsmakers have the Reds tied with the Angels and A's as the sixth most likely team favored to win the World Series, at odds of 15-1. If anything those odds are more optimistic than I am. That said, the Red Sox were hardly expected to win it all last year. That's why they play the games.
    "Hey...Dad. Wanna Have A Catch?" Kevin Costner in "Field Of Dreams."

  20. #12
    post hype sleeper cincinnati chili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    10,887

    Re: 2014 Reds = 1919 Reds?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsBaron View Post
    I certainly do not expect the Reds to win it all in 2014. I read today that Vegas oddsmakers have the Reds tied with the Angels and A's as the sixth most likely team favored to win the World Series, at odds of 15-1. If anything those odds are more optimistic than I am. That said, the Red Sox were hardly expected to win it all last year. That's why they play the games.
    I wasn't sure how this compared to April of 2013. Apparently, at that time the Red Sox were 25-1 to win it all and the Reds were between 10-1 and 12-1 depending on the sports book:

    http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2013/3/1...season-betting

    Maybe, I'm delusional. I still think Walt might have something in mind to boost the offense before spring training.
    ". . . acquiring J. Blanton from Oakland for, apparently, Bailey/Cueto, Votto and a lesser prospect. I do it in a second . . . The Reds' equation this year is simple: Make Matt Belisle your #3 starter . . . trade for Blanton, win 85 or more, be in the mix all summer." - Paul Daugherty, Feb. 8, 2008

  21. #13
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    43,297

    Re: 2014 Reds = 1919 Reds?

    One thing about 1919 was that it was a season that really was like no other season. It was a short season (140 games) and many clubs were affected by players returning late from (enforced) war time service and the NL itself was in a odd state of flux having had the following teams appear in the World Series Braves - Phillies - Dodgers - Giants - Cubs. In short there was no prominent team in the league at the time, the league was shall we say was up for grabs.

    The war really affected the Reds management that year, Mathewson was unable to be reached in France, he had been accidentally exposed to Mustard Gas and the team had to find a new manager, which would be Pat Moran who had been a catcher for the Cubs during the years they were in and WON a world series. He later managed the 1915 Philiies to their first title, the Phillies were the Cubs way before the Cubs were. They were in two World Series and only won 2 Pennants in the first 97 years of their existence.

    So another similarity is the team has a new manager in 2014 just like 1919.

  22. Likes:

    Crumbley (01-26-2014), Old school 1983 (01-26-2014)

  23. #14
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,452

    Re: 2014 Reds = 1919 Reds?

    Quote Originally Posted by cincinnati chili View Post
    Maybe, I'm delusional. I still think Walt might have something in mind to boost the offense before spring training.
    Same here. Might happen before ST. Might happen during ST. Might happen the first month of the season. The Reds are going to find another bat, likely an OF.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  24. #15
    Moderator RedlegJake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    North Kansas City, Mo
    Posts
    6,094

    Re: 2014 Reds = 1919 Reds?

    Another notable, though less happy similarity. After 1919 the Reds were in the running because of their deep pitching, for several years. However they failed to go out and get any offensive upgrades and never capitalized on that pitching staff again.
    No - I am not from State Farm!


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25